Volume 31 Third Supplement

abuse of process – sections 14-17, 69(1) and Part IV of the Inland Revenue Ordinance

whether questions proposed are proper questions of law – whether arguable and fit for the opinion of the Court of First Instance– section 69(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)

failure to furnish return on time – whether there was reasonable excuse for the failure – whether amount of additional tax excessive – sections 51 and 82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) [Decision in Chinese]

absence of witness by taxpayer – whether adverse inference can be drawn against the taxpayer – whether weight can be attached – section 68(4) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance – stated intention is not decisive – burden to prove the purchase did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade was on the Appellant

sale of property – whether receipt capital in nature – sections 2(1), 14(1), 68(4) and (9) of Inland Revenue Ordinance, Chapter 112 (‘IRO’)

whether overburden removal costs were capital in nature – accounting principle ‘matching concept’ – sections 16, 17 and 19C(4) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance

certified public accountant – appellant receiving honorarium from professional institution – whether honorarium chargeable to salaries tax – whether appellant an employee of institution – sections 8(1), 9(1)(a), 14 and 68(4) and (8) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 112) (‘IRO’)

dependent parent allowance– whether ordinarily resident in Hong Kong–sections 8(1B) and 30(1)of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)